August 2012

Dozens of South Africans protesting near Marikana mine just one day after police opened fire on miners on strike (photo by Themba Hadebe, Associated Press).

by Christine Smith

A country known for its brutal apartheid policies from 1948-1994, South Africa is still reeling from Thursday, August 16th’s violent episode between police officers and striking miners. Specifically, police officers resorted to the use of barbed wire to contain the miners, followed by tear gas, stun grenades, and firearms to disperse them. The Marikana mine where the strikes have been occurring for over a week is operated by the world’s third largest platinum producer, Lonmin, and currently employs roughly 28,000 people. Of the 28,000 employees, 3,000 have been a part of the ongoing strikes. While many following the story sympathize with the police’s use of force and claim it was a necessary response to the striking miners who were waving machetes, few are digging deeper to better understand why the Marikana miners felt it was necessary to carry machetes while striking.

With wages at just $9,000 per year (or a monthly wage of $400-$600), it hardly comes as a surprise that South African miners, including those at the Marikana mine, would seek wage increases that place them closer to Australian miners’ $110,000 a year salaries. Consequently, South African miners have sought help from both unions present – the dominant and older National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) which has ties to the current administration’s African National Congress, and the increasingly more appealing Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union (AMCU) who often uses aggressive tactics to win wage increases. Both unions, however, are fierce rivals who often let politics trump the miners’ best interests.

Although carrying machetes seems unnecessary, to the Marikana miners on strike, if waving machetes meant a better chance of securing higher wages at their job, then it was most likely viewed as a vital step to take, especially if the move was supported by the AMCU as reports suggest. Additionally, the deadly police violence against miners at Impala Platinum mine in February, which resulted in a 125% increase in wages, potentially served as another reason and possible catalyst for the Marikana miners’ behavior.

It would seem natural, then, that when negotiations between Lonmin, the miners, and the two unions fell through in the days leading up to the August 16th killings, the miners used their machetes to hack two police officers to death out of frustration and because of AMCU involvement. The violence that erupted on August 16th, which left 34 miners dead and 78 wounded, also started after another round of negotiations failed.

The violence, however, has not merely affected those living in South Africa, but has also had an impact on international diplomacy and trade. Because Lonmin is a London-based mining company, it must now undergo damage control to not only repair its image as a company, but to ensure that management practices, like determining employee salaries, do not echo Britain’s colonial policies. If such a connection between the Marikana mine violence and apartheid policies becomes widely accepted by the public, both the British and South African governments will be forced to reevaluate their diplomatic relations. Additionally, because of the Marikana incident, Lonmin shares fell by 8% between August 16th and 17th and by over 12% since the violence began. International platinum prices additionally reacted to the violence by rising 4% the following day, showing just how easy it is for a national dispute to become a concern for global markets.

Even though the use of violence for personal gain is never justifiable, by ignoring the circumstances leading up to August 16th’s deadly strikes, people wrongly place sole blame on the South African miners and police officers who were directly a part of the violence. By doing this, people ignore companies like Lonmin and miners unions who purposely underpay their employees in order to increase their profits. Critics, therefore, should not be so quick to place blame, especially when so many of those bearing the brunt of it all are still grieving from the loss of loved ones. Instead, critics should demand South African policymakers create better practices for mining companies and unions so that mining employees will no longer desperately resort to violent protests to gain better benefits and working conditions. Doing so will not only protect the miners, but will also prevent another unnecessary disturbance to the global order.

Facts and figures obtained from CNN, BBC News, and The New York Times.

Christine Smith recently received her B.A. in Political Science and two minors in African Studies and Anthropology from Boston University. She will be starting her M.A. in African Studies this fall at UCLA.

South Africa Regresses after Deadly Marikana Mine Incident was last modified: August 25th, 2012 by thegeneration

In the 1990s Afghanistan was a hodgepodge country, made up of many different lands, each owned, operated, and lorded over by thick-bearded men with little patience for luxuries like compassion, mercy and beneficence. The country already divided by ethnicity and languages had become stratified by guns and dope. These warlords became the centerpieces of political, economic, and societal power during the heyday of the Afghan Civil War. But that name, the Afghan Civil War, is a misnomer. It was more like an unorganized fracas. It was more like Game of Thrones.

If you’ve seen the television show Game of Thrones (GoT), or read the Song of Ice and Fire series of novels it is based on, you’ll see where I’m going with this. Just like the five Kings of Westeros (the fictional setting of the novel and TV series) pitted their armies against each other from all corners of the continent, so too did the warlords of Afghanistan pit their ragtag bands of guerrilla fighters against each other. Instead of the Iron Throne, they were fighting for the city of Kabul. And instead of swords, they had AK-47s. But the damage to the surrounding countryside, civilians, and ultimately the soul of Afghanistan was the same as the fictionalized trauma suffered in the novels.

Evidence is abundant that this has continued despite the best efforts of the 2001 invasion by the Coalition Army. And the potential comparisons between Game of Thrones haven’t stopped growing either. The former rulers of Westeros were the Valyrians, a brutal, high-minded people with a severe superiority complex. The former rulers of Afghanistan were the Taliban, a vicious, hypocritical bunch with an often violent holier-than-thou mentality. Both were driven out by the current rulers, the Baratheons in GoT and the clunky Kabul government in Afghanistan, and both are making plays to regain their power – the Taliban’s resurgence in the south and the Valyrians machinations in the later novels of the series.

When one searches for some semblance of nobility in the novels of GoT, the only place you’ll find it is in the North with the Starks of Winterfell. Strangely enough, the most ennobled group of violent miscreants in Afghanistan is the much lauded Northern Alliance. The similarities are uncanny. The reigning lord of House Stark, Ned Stark, was wrongfully killed by the ruling clan of Westeros. Ahmad Shah Massoud, the beloved leader of the Northern Alliance, was assassinated by the rulers of Afghanistan – the Taliban. The Northern Alliance has grown in stature and prominence, but just like the Starks in the novels, they haven’t quite grasped the seat of power in Afghanistan.

Yet there is one difference between the novels and the current situation in Afghanistan. Instead of fighting with a specific goal in mind, the Kings of Afghanistan seem to be killing for killing’s sake. Or rather, for Islam’s sake. Or for the Pashtun’s sake. Or for their fallen brothers. Or for their families. Really, they’re all fighting for whatever reason is most expedient at the time. Which begs the question, what is truly driving this bloodshed? It’s not money, that’s too easy of an answer and it’s become clichéd at this point. No, everyone in Afghanistan right now is fighting for their survival. In every sense of the word, the Graveyard of Empires has become the most primordial place on Earth.

This doesn’t bode well for the Coalition forces that will be staying in Afghanistan for the next few years, unless the withdrawal is sped up drastically. The chaos that is the true ruler of Afghanistan, and Westeros, will go on for the foreseeable future. The abject poverty will continue. The desecration of human rights, life, and happiness won’t stop. And all because a few bearded men with too many guns, too much money, and very little decency think that survival is equal to murder. It’s sad that a novel that has so many deprave characters is actually being acted out in real life. It’s sad that nothing so far has been able to stop this tide of suffering.

If ever there was a time for the Afghan diaspora to finally stand up and repopulate the braintrust of Afghanistan, it is now. Repatriation is not the goal, rejuvenation of a broken land is. And as a people, Afghans don’t have to suffer the fate of fictional characters. Pride must be foregone; lust for power must be tamed. With all of these comparisons, hopes for peace seem futile. GoT doesn’t have any good endings. Then again, Game of Thrones isn’t real. Afghanistan is.

Reza Hessabi is a recent graduate of UCLA and former co-editor of The Generation. He runs the blog Common Sense, where for the past three years he has written over sixty essays discussing life in America as a Muslim.

If Afghanistan Were a Television Show was last modified: August 20th, 2012 by thegeneration

The last time I visited Iran I was ten, and although I looked eight, I still had to wear a hijab and be covered head-to-toe anytime I was outside. This summer, I planned on returning to Iran to see my grandmother for most likely the last time. I am now 21, and although I look 15, I was still prepared to wear whatever I had to in the 110 degree dry heat in order to see my grandmother. But after a phone call with my aunt last week, it turns out I will no longer be visiting my parents’ homeland. As I sat listening to her explain how it is too dangerous for me to visit Iran, I was stunned. I expected this from my American friends or co-workers, but not from one of our own. I responded as I did to friends who worried if it was a safe time to visit, “But I have dual citizenship, my parents are Iranian, I speak Farsi, and I’ll still have the protection of the good ol’ U-S-of A.”

Aside from the obvious fears of potential war, she emphasized how my visit would fall on the month of Ramadan, an Islamic holiday entailing dawn until dusk fasting everyday for a month. Hence, in about a week in Iran (and many other Muslim countries), there will be no eating, drinking, or smoking in public during the daylight hours. Moreover, the already absurd and oppressive laws will be enforced under a zero tolerance policy. If I wear too much make-up, if my hair is showing a bit, if I am not dressed like a wizard, etc. special police called “modesty squads” will be on the streets enforcing their standards with punishments for violation including lashes, fines or imprisonment. Wonderful.

As I reflect upon my last visit, this is neither the Iran I remember (although not as a liberal haven, a far more lax vision than the current state of affairs) nor the Iran my parents spoke so fondly of, a progressive Iran they were so proud of. Countless times I have sat in the car beside my father as he (un-prompted) began explaining how the “Persians liberated oppressed minorities, invented mathematics” and essentially began the civilized world. His bias pride and thick booming accent aside, he is right about a few things. In his Iran, the Iran of the generations before us, the Iranian government was a beacon of progression and innovation, not an oppressive expression of insecurity and ignorance. I used to ask my parents why, after living in the United States for twice as long as they ever lived in Iran, their hearts ached for a homeland I did not understand. My mother explained, “Azizam (my dear), things were not always this way…the Iran I love was a place where women wore shorts and were not afraid, where the government, like Cyrus the Great, reflected his people’s values instead of oppressing them.” As a child, I never understood her deep love affair with Iran, but after my first visit, her nostalgic vision slowly became my own.

The Empire That Once Was

Although it is difficult to tell from today’s Iran, there remain historical symbols amongst the Iranian people that more accurately reflect the people’s priorities, as referenced by my mother’s mention of Cyrus the Great (Iran’s Abe Lincoln). From government rulers to religious tenants to progressive innovations, the country’s past shows us the greater potential of Iran’s future.

Among the artillery of Iranian history my parents’ generation is surely to reference is Cyrus’s Great Cylinder, a piece The United Nations continues to promote as “an ancient declaration of human rights.” Yet, more than a written relic, the ruler’s legacy as a tolerant and progressive figure towards those he defeated and ruled serves to symbolize an origin of tolerance in Iran that has since been forgotten.

In fact, the issue of modern Iran’s fundamentalist Islamic government falls short of the country’s original religious roots: Zoroastrianism. As one of the first religions of the world, Iran’s foundation of Zoroastrianism held free will, “good thoughts, good words, and good deeds” as fundamentally key to happiness and the maintenance of chaos—quite different than today’s Islamic Republic of Iran.

Lastly, what more reflective of the promise of a progressive and engaging nation than its contribution to man’s innovations, including the first: power windmill, banking system of the world, distillation of alcohol, and the creation of algebra, trigonometry, and of course, ice cream (you’re welcome).

Modern Iran’s Failing Politics and Economy

But what has Iran become today? A theocracy. Oppression. Violence. Torturing and killing political opponents. Quarantined from the global social, political and economic realms. Sexism. Persecution of Bahá’ís, gays, and really anyone who isn’t (or isn’t pretending to be) part of a fundamentalist gang running a nation at complete discord with its own people.

In today’s Iran, homosexual behavior and adultery (for women only) are illegal and can carry the death penalty. If a Muslim woman engages in a relationship with a non-Muslim man, she may be sentenced to be whipped. Men (and only men) can contract multiple marriages at a time (up to four permanently and as many temporarily as desired) and can terminate each marriage at will. As for custody, under Iranian law, the children always go to the father—even if the father is not present, the children go to his parents over the mother herself.

Furthermore, a recent announcement of 36 Iranian universities closing 77 fields of study (mostly math and sciences) to women only goes to further devolve the great country that once was. Following the election protests of 2009, the Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei blamed universities for encouraging subversive behavior and mandated a greater focus on Islamic principles in universities. How promising.

The Iranian government’s current dismissal of human rights aside for a moment, the recent political actions of the government of Iran are now economically penalizing the entire nation. As a result of the Iranian government’s refusal to negotiate or reverse course on its nuclear program, the European Union (EU) governments have agreed to an immediate prohibition of all new contracts to import, buy or transport Iranian crude oil and petroleum products. Last Monday marked the first day of oil trading under the embargo, and consequently, the International Energy Agency estimates as much as one million barrels of Iran’s crude may leave the market.

Countries such as South Korea, Australia, Canada, Japan, Switzerland, and the United States have also engaged in bilateral sanctions against Iran in hopes of curbing its nuclear program. Iran has a $352 billion, oil-dominated economy, hence the objective of the sanctions to make it harder to obtain specialized resources and equipment needed for the nuclear program. Consequently, the value of the Iranian rial has plummeted since fall 2011 and has now fallen another 10% immediately after the implementation of the recent EU oil embargo, significantly affecting the Iranian people.

Fast-rising prices (the cost of chicken, a staple during Ramadan, has doubled in the last two months) have resulted in recent protests by outraged consumers chanting anti-government slogans like “Death to the looter of public treasure!”— reflecting a popular view among Iranians that public capital is being funneled into bureaucratic pockets instead of benefiting the Iranian public. In response, advisor to the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, Yadollah Javani, claims “The West is trying to create a divide between the people and the government.”

No, The East is trying to hide a divide between the people and the government for its own manipulative power-maintenance purposes. Iranian currency has devaluated 40% since February; the self-serving political decisions of the Iranian government are having tangible negative effects on millions of citizens all because of a few merciless men who will stop at nothing for power. Not even at killing their own innocent children of Iran. Not even at sacrificing an entire nation’s economy. Not even at demolishing the once great name of an empire.

The vision of Iran from the eyes of the people is not the same as that of their leaders. And more importantly, the promise of revolution lies in the blood of the Iranian people, in their past, in their resume for rebellion, progression, and tolerance–not in its current government’s fundamentalist power struggle. Iran need not remain a nostalgic fantasy, as it is now, a heavy sigh amongst my parents’ generation. After all, as Michael Leeden writes in a recent Foreign Affairs article, “Although an Iranian revolution may seem unlikely to the casual observer, the Iranian people can be said to have revolution in their DNA, having carried out three revolutions in the twentieth century.”

The Future of a Homeland

In summation, although sanctions may temporarily pressure the Iranian government’s economic options for a nuclear program, long-term, the Iranian people need a democracy, one in which their votes are not stolen, their women are not hidden, and their economy is not a gambling chip.

Meanwhile, the government’s intolerance of minorities in reality is really nothing more than a projection of its own weakness and fear; the stricter they enforce their oppressive laws, the more evident it becomes they are losing control of a boiling nation with a dangerously strong youth demographic waiting to be unleashed (60% of Iran’s population are under 30 years old). From the Green Movement to the attacks on Revolutionary Guard Corps last March, tensions grow and patience draws a close amongst the people of Iran, but their sticks and stones fall short when flung against the government’s unforgiving army of machines, ceasing for neither child nor elder. So what will work?

When I last visited Iran as a child, I observed my own temporary oppression and the more permanent bondage of my female cousins as they longed to escape their hijab and wear “two pieces in America.” I resented the government then, at age nine, as much as I do now for its insecure bondage of a people. I asked my father why someone didn’t hire an assassin to take out the top fundamentalist members of the government (obviously I had watched Godfather too many times). Although the idea made my father smile, he explained how that would not actually solve anything—one dramatically eliminated extremist would just be replaced with another. The long-term solution is implementation of a progressive democratic system genuinely created and supported by the Iranian people. It seems that has already begun to some extent. The Iranian people sent a clear message to the Obama administration in November 2009 after the fraudulent Iranian election: “Religion, by the will of the Iranian people of today, has to be separated from the state in order to guarantee unity of Iran.”

Moreover, as Leeden projects, there will be a need for a global union of actions: a call for the end of the regime; airing unbiased, on-the-ground news of Iran to the Iranian people in Iran and America; publicly demanding the release of political prisoners; and implementing international trade unions as a strike fund for Iranian workers.

I believe the last piece of the puzzle, and perhaps the most powerful, are Iranian Americans living in America. With the organization of Iranian citizens within Iran, the support of a global effort for universal human rights, and the tapping of a hugely agitated and patriotic Iranian-American population in America itching to get a punch in at the pillagers of their homeland, I believe there could be a promising and progressive future for Iran. Let us look to Iran’s beautiful past to turn today’s third world shadow of an empire into the bright promise that flutters in the hearts of the generations before us.

Facts and figures from BBC, CBN, and Foreign Affairs.

The De-evolution of Iran: Re-claiming a Homeland was last modified: May 16th, 2013 by thegeneration

“Within our mandate, the ECB is ready to do whatever it takes to preserve the euro. And believe me, it will be enough,” Mario Draghi, President of the European Central Bank (ECB), stated on July 26, 2012. What was once a question of Greece leaving the European Union (EU), commonly known as “Grexit,” has now evolved into the question of breaking up the entire EU. The ramifications of multiple countries leaving the EU, or even one country leaving, would be felt in economies around the world. But, as Draghi states, European leaders are looking beyond this possibility to continue to work towards healing the crises in Europe.

The common belief thus far, shared by economists, leaders, and the public, has been that Greece would be the first to leave. Greece, the first EU country to suffer drastic economic setbacks, had accumulated large government debts prior to the economic downturn in 2008. The weak fiscal policies could not generate enough revenue to cover the high rate of borrowing. In 2009, its debt was 113% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), putting it in a weak position to overcome the hit to its markets.

Elsewhere in the EU, Spain is trying to avoid becoming a second Greece by announcing harsher austerity measures that will increase taxes and cut spending at the local levels. Spain is in a risky position—the interest rate for its 10 year government bonds is passing 7%, signaling investor hesitation and long term instability. If investors are reluctant to put money into bonds, Spain will not get the money it needs to bail out banks. While some options are still on the table for countries like Spain, the actions taken in Greece will set an important precedent.

The idea of Greece potentially leaving the EU raises three questions: (1) Will Greece leave the EU? (2) Should Greece leave the EU? (3) If Greece leaves the EU, does it pave the way for progress?

The Greek elections on June 18, 2012 indicated a positive sign for Greece with the victory of the New Democracy. The party is in support of bailouts and implementing austerity measures to ensure that a “Grexit” does not take place. Even though the win represents a positive political shift in Greece, strong fiscal measures will be needed to lift Greece out of the economic depression. The two bailouts Greece has received amounted to more than 250 billion euros and aid continues to flow in the form of loans. Thus, in the short term, Greece is safe. The new government and new measures put into place will test how much longer Greece can sustain its EU membership.

Although some economists and analysts believe that Greece leaving the EU could be beneficial, an exit will be costly for Greece and its neighboring countries. If Greece leaves the EU, the first hurdle it will face is a drastic devaluation of its currency. With the euro, the currency valuation rests on the economic well being of 17 countries—out of which a few still show signs of economic growth. Without this buffer, the Greek currency will be extremely weak and vulnerable to hyperinflation. Greece’s primary industries of tourism and shipping are insufficient to support Greece on their own. Second, as seen in the past, drastic devaluation of currencies results in shortages, inflation, and eventually, political fallout. Economic instability has historically been a cause of political shifts and unrest. This will only lead to rebellion and violence, endangering Greek citizens and citizens of neighboring countries.

What really lies at the core of the crises? A more basic change that needs to occur in order to prevent these economic problems. Amongst the countries using the euro, we see many fiscal divisions that will not be solved by Greece leaving the EU. The fundamental problem lies in the way fiscal policies are implemented. A central bank, like the European Central Bank (ECB), has two main responsibilities: monetary policy and fiscal policy. The ECB carries out monetary policy but it lacks consistent fiscal policy—taxing and spending. The root cause of the Greek crisis was the increasing debt due to a small influx of taxes that was not enough to cover the excessive spending attributed to Greek wage and pension requirement. Thus, the ECB should maintain greater oversight over the types of tax policies and spending policies put into place by individual governments. If multiple countries are employing the same currency and some countries are undermining its value through ineffective fiscal policy, it can create a harmful domino effect.

The answer to all three questions stated earlier seems to be a “No.” Furthermore, an exit from the EU would set a bad precedent for other countries. An exit does not guarantee economic progress or serve as hope of calm in the midst of chaos. Economic recovery due to large budget deficits and extensive borrowing requires intensive reform that imposes strict consequences for excessive deficit spending. Draghi establishing his stance on this issue is an important step in not only giving investors hope that Europe has not given up in its fight, but also hope for the people of Greece and the EU that their government and the ECB will continue to support their needs in a time of crisis.

Figures obtained from BBC News, Forbes, and the Wall Street Journal.

Trisha Parikh is an undergraduate student at UCLA majoring in Economics and Political Science. She is a co-editor with The Generation.

Greece: Why Exiting the European Union is not the Solution was last modified: August 6th, 2012 by thegeneration